I will also add that the priest is not the one who forgives sins. It's Christ himself. That is why we confess to the Icon of Christ. The priest is there as a witness and a spiritual guide. When the church prays as a whole at the liturgy the same sacrament is relieved only as a church rather than an individual. It's a communal prayer and confession.

I thought you had to have approval from your priest and approval of the priest at the parish you visit in order to have communion. If that is the case wouldn't you ask what the requirements are for a given parish and follow them? It seems like an issue of respect to me. I don't take off my shoes as I enter my house. But I have friends that do so at their homes. So when I visit their house I take off my shoes as I enter. But that doesn't mean that I have to change my practice at my own home.

I've gone to many a different parish in my day (even around the world) and I've never once been asked anything other than, "What parish do you go to?" Never once have I been refused communion. I think it depends which church you go to and which customs you follow during the liturgy. For example, if you cross yourself right to left, bow at the appropriate times, present an aura of being Orthodox, most priests will take notice of that and if you provide them with a parish they will not question providing the sacraments. Of course I'm sure that each individual situation is different and its always best to check with the priest before you come up to receive.

-Nick

Our instructions from our priest is that you contact the priest of the parish you are visiting and give them our home parish information (priest's name, parish, location, phone number) say you are an Orthodox Christian in good standing and that you would like to receive when you attend DL. Then ask about any differences there might be so that you can observe them. Most women don't wear headcoverings in our parish. When they visit parishes that require it (or monastery's that do) they will wear a headcovering.

Seems to me latinazation is creeping into Holy Orthodoxy God save us from that

We Serbs do have certain advantage of seeing that.

We don't need "arguments" of "orthodox" internet "theologians" to explain how it is actually the other way around, and that linking communion with confession is latinization.

We do have a saying, do you know it brother?

"Од воље му као Шокцу пост".

All the arguments of "orthodox" internet "theologians" falls apart against that.

What advantage is that, friend? Could you please explain more clearly what you mean?

And for us lowly, non-Serbian Orthodox, could you please translate that?

The advantage is the heritage of centuries of contacts/living with Roman Catholics.

The saying goes:

"It is at his will/disposal, the same as is the fast to a Sokac*".

*Sokac(s), Sokci (pl)=the group of Serbs whom became Roman Catholics during 18th and 19th century in the Hungarian areas of Austria-Hungary, but before Vatican policy of creating Croatian nation out of Orthodox Serb converts to Roman Catholicisam was applied consistently, so they picked a distinct name, since they haven't become Croats, but couldn't remain Serbs.

It pictures clearly the differences towards fast (consequently, and confession and communion) between Orthodox and "Latin" (or whatever name you want to pertain to Christians "in communion with the Pope of Rome") as any expression of any nation in the World, since all of them say the collective experience in a few words.

Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

I'm going to agree with Fr. Anastasios on this because the sacrament of confession is a separate sacrament in my church. It could also relate to the way Greeks differ slightly to the practices of the Slavic traditions. Our church often uses the our father prayer before receiving communion. We pray this as a community. Now if there are specific sins one my have that will affect there communion with the church then one should non approach the Eucharist in a sinful state.

Please understand that I am not trying to start an arguement but just trying to pin down what the Orthodox understanding of this is. I was under the impression that there was no difference in sins (venial vs. mortal) in the Eastern Orthodox Church yet here you seem to be suggesting that there are a difference in sins: those that don't affect one's communion with the church (venial) and those that do (mortal). What is the Eastern Orthodox position on this matter. If the moderators feel that this question needs to be moved to another subforum, I totally understand. I just didn't want to forget to ask this question after seeing this post.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

We don't need "arguments" of "orthodox" internet "theologians" to explain how it is actually the other way around, and that linking communion with confession is latinization.

We do have a saying, do you know it brother?

"Од воље му као Шокцу пост".

All the arguments of "orthodox" internet "theologians" falls apart against that.

Slava Isusu Christu!

How are you my brother in Christ!?!

I can only add this: When I fast and pray and confess before each Holy Communion, there is a healing involved that I cannot put into words. No one can tell me that Confession and Communion are not linked. Confession heals the wound and Holy Communion covers it with a soothing balm. I Confess my sins to God and then receive the Body and Blood Jesus Christ.

Please understand that I am not trying to start an arguement but just trying to pin down what the Orthodox understanding of this is. I was under the impression that there was no difference in sins (venial vs. mortal) in the Eastern Orthodox Church yet here you seem to be suggesting that there are a difference in sins: those that don't affect one's communion with the church (venial) and those that do (mortal). What is the Eastern Orthodox position on this matter. If the moderators feel that this question needs to be moved to another subforum, I totally understand. I just didn't want to forget to ask this question after seeing this post.

It's a good question - here's the answer. In Orthodoxy, some sins are treated with a severing of communion not because of an understanding of a different eternal consequence, but rather because those sins affect the community in a specific way - so the temporary severing of communion is for the healing of the individual, their reconciliation to the community, the healing of those harmed and those affected within the community, and a straightening of the penitent's behavior to again be acceptable and safe for community life.

Stashko, the linking of the Mysterion of Confession to the Mysterion of Communion is a Latinization.They are separate Mysterions in Orthodoxy and each stands alone. One does not "have" to go to Confession each time before Communion.

Are there some sources to back up your claim, or we should just rely on your opinion?Particularly I'm asking for the referrence relating "prepared for communion" viz "confession" viz "sinfull state of man after the fall".

Thank you in advance.

Well, the main source is the witness of the fact that Communion itself is for the forgiveness of sin according to the Liturgical Practice of the Orthodox Church:"The Servant of God, N., Communes of the Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sin and Eternal Life."

And, as Fr. Anastasios points out, the prayers before Communion also make this clear:

This thread has become a painful reminder that, though I purchased it a year ago, I still haven't gotten around to reading St. Nikodemos' "Concerning Frequent Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries of Christ." In it, St. Nikodemos argues that frequent communion was indeed the prevailing practice of the Church in ancient days, and that it should still be; however, if I had read it, I would know if he says anything regarding confession as well.

Has anyone here read this volume, and/or know if it mentions regular or 1:1 confession:communion in it?

I'm going to agree with Fr. Anastasios on this because the sacrament of confession is a separate sacrament in my church. It could also relate to the way Greeks differ slightly to the practices of the Slavic traditions. Our church often uses the our father prayer before receiving communion. We pray this as a community. Now if there are specific sins one my have that will affect there communion with the church then one should non approach the Eucharist in a sinful state.

A sinful state? Aren't we all in a perpetual state of error or woundedness? Do Orthodox actually try and determine a particular 'degree' that shouldn't be crossed and receive communion?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Stashko, the linking of the Mysterion of Confession to the Mysterion of Communion is a Latinization.They are separate Mysterions in Orthodoxy and each stands alone. One does not "have" to go to Confession each time before Communion.

Are there some sources to back up your claim, or we should just rely on your opinion?

Particularly I'm asking for the referrence relating "prepared for communion" viz "confession" viz "sinfull state of man after the fall".

Thank you in advance.

The topic of the "unbreakability" of the link between Confession and Communion has been discussed here before. You may even find some sources there to satisfy your request.

Please understand that I am not trying to start an arguement but just trying to pin down what the Orthodox understanding of this is. I was under the impression that there was no difference in sins (venial vs. mortal) in the Eastern Orthodox Church yet here you seem to be suggesting that there are a difference in sins: those that don't affect one's communion with the church (venial) and those that do (mortal). What is the Eastern Orthodox position on this matter. If the moderators feel that this question needs to be moved to another subforum, I totally understand. I just didn't want to forget to ask this question after seeing this post.

It's a good question - here's the answer. In Orthodoxy, some sins are treated with a severing of communion not because of an understanding of a different eternal consequence, but rather because those sins affect the community in a specific way - so the temporary severing of communion is for the healing of the individual, their reconciliation to the community, the healing of those harmed and those affected within the community, and a straightening of the penitent's behavior to again be acceptable and safe for community life.

Thank you so much. That is a very clear and concise answer. Is there a specific way that this is determined or is more up to the person and his or her conscience/spiritual father?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I'm going to agree with Fr. Anastasios on this because the sacrament of confession is a separate sacrament in my church. It could also relate to the way Greeks differ slightly to the practices of the Slavic traditions.

In the Slav Churches (those that I know first hand the Serbian and the Russian) Confesion and Communion aere tightly linked, so much so that people will commonly say, "I want to confess on Saturday" and you know that they are telling you they will be at Communion also.

Confession without Communion takes place, of course, especially when a heavy sin needs to be confessd.

This linkage of the two Mysteries has ensured that Confession remains a normal and accepted part of church life for the faithful and does not become such an irregular event that people begin to think that it is something only for Catholics.

We don't need "arguments" of "orthodox" internet "theologians" to explain how it is actually the other way around, and that linking communion with confession is latinization.

We do have a saying, do you know it brother?

"Од воље му као Шокцу пост".

All the arguments of "orthodox" internet "theologians" falls apart against that.

Slava Isusu Christu!

How are you my brother in Christ!?!

I can only add this: When I fast and pray and confess before each Holy Communion, there is a healing involved that I cannot put into words. No one can tell me that Confession and Communion are not linked. Confession heals the wound and Holy Communion covers it with a soothing balm. I Confess my sins to God and then receive the Body and Blood Jesus Christ.

I would not have it any other way.

That's right, both of you. Don't ever let rational argument get in the way of how you "feel" about something. No matter what.

We don't need "arguments" of "orthodox" internet "theologians" to explain how it is actually the other way around, and that linking communion with confession is latinization.

We do have a saying, do you know it brother?

"Од воље му као Шокцу пост".

All the arguments of "orthodox" internet "theologians" falls apart against that.

Slava Isusu Christu!

How are you my brother in Christ!?!

I can only add this: When I fast and pray and confess before each Holy Communion, there is a healing involved that I cannot put into words. No one can tell me that Confession and Communion are not linked. Confession heals the wound and Holy Communion covers it with a soothing balm. I Confess my sins to God and then receive the Body and Blood Jesus Christ.

I would not have it any other way.

Exactly, bro.

I hope you and yours are well.

Me, I'm in usual struggle.

Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

Stashko, the linking of the Mysterion of Confession to the Mysterion of Communion is a Latinization.They are separate Mysterions in Orthodoxy and each stands alone. One does not "have" to go to Confession each time before Communion.

Are there some sources to back up your claim, or we should just rely on your opinion?Particularly I'm asking for the referrence relating "prepared for communion" viz "confession" viz "sinfull state of man after the fall".

Thank you in advance.

Well, the main source is the witness of the fact that Communion itself is for the forgiveness of sin according to the Liturgical Practice of the Orthodox Church:"The Servant of God, N., Communes of the Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sin and Eternal Life."

And, as Fr. Anastasios points out, the prayers before Communion also make this clear:

Indeed, even amongst us Greek Old Calendarists there is no requirement linking the two. How could there be, when the prayers before communion make it clear that Communion itself forgives various sins?

If you don't mind, I'd prefer sticking with the warning of St. Paul, notwithstanding the authority of the Greek Old Calendarists and the book of unknown author you recommend.

Not to mention I'll be simultaneously in compliance with the advice of St. GoldenMouth (or was it St. Gregory the Theologian?) about not taking the communion unprepared, that is expressed in wishes we say to each other after the communion: "May it be for your salvation, and not for your sentence!"

Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

Forget the fact that I am an Old Calendarist. I mention it because our practices are often more strict and less modernized and most people know that--it is important data for when comparing various national traditions and practices--but since you have a problem with it, forget it.

Address the fact that the communion prayers themselves say that Communion forgives sins (and that we should in fact be receiving communion frequently [Prayer 3 in particular].

As far as the ad hominem against "internet theologians"--this teaching that linking one confession to one communion is a Latinization was taught to me at St Vladimir's Seminary (OCA) by the professor of liturgics.

Again, my perspective is simple: I think that confession before communion is a pastoral situation applicable to most. But, it is not Orthodox doctrine.

It's a good question - here's the answer. In Orthodoxy, some sins are treated with a severing of communion not because of an understanding of a different eternal consequence, but rather because those sins affect the community in a specific way - so the temporary severing of communion is for the healing of the individual, their reconciliation to the community, the healing of those harmed and those affected within the community, and a straightening of the penitent's behavior to again be acceptable and safe for community life.

Thank you so much. That is a very clear and concise answer. Is there a specific way that this is determined or is more up to the person and his or her conscience/spiritual father?

Both. There are guidelines, in confessor's manuels and the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and the saints; but, as always, there is allowance, from Canon 103 of Trullo/Quintisext, which leaves room for pastoral consideration in the application of the canons (not implying laxity, however, just deviation from exactness).

If you don't mind, I'd prefer sticking with the warning of St. Paul, notwithstanding the authority of the Greek Old Calendarists and the book of unknown author you recommend.

Well if you won't listen to a Monk of Mount Athos, will Fr. Alexander Schmemann do?

Quote

This practice, natural and self-evident in the case of infrequent, once-a-year, communion, led to the appearance in the Church of a theory according to which the communion of laity, different in this from the communion of clergy, is impossible without the Sacrament of Penance, so that confession is an obligatory condition - always and in all cases - for communion. I dare to affirm that this theory (which spread mainly in the Russian Church) not only has no foundation in Tradition, but openly contradicts the Orthodox doctrine of the Church, of the Sacrament of Communion and of that of Penance. Source.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 06:11:07 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Stashko, the linking of the Mysterion of Confession to the Mysterion of Communion is a Latinization.They are separate Mysterions in Orthodoxy and each stands alone. One does not "have" to go to Confession each time before Communion.

Are there some sources to back up your claim, or we should just rely on your opinion?Particularly I'm asking for the referrence relating "prepared for communion" viz "confession" viz "sinfull state of man after the fall".

Thank you in advance.

Well, the main source is the witness of the fact that Communion itself is for the forgiveness of sin according to the Liturgical Practice of the Orthodox Church:"The Servant of God, N., Communes of the Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sin and Eternal Life."

And, as Fr. Anastasios points out, the prayers before Communion also make this clear:

Indeed, even amongst us Greek Old Calendarists there is no requirement linking the two. How could there be, when the prayers before communion make it clear that Communion itself forgives various sins?

If you don't mind, I'd prefer sticking with the warning of St. Paul, notwithstanding the authority of the Greek Old Calendarists and the book of unknown author you recommend.

Not to mention I'll be simultaneously in compliance with the advice of St. GoldenMouth (or was it St. Gregory the Theologian?) about not taking the communion unprepared, that is expressed in wishes we say to each other after the communion: "May it be for your salvation, and not for your sentence!"

To my knowledge, neither St. Paul nor St. John Chrysostom speak of the sacramental rite of Confession (as we know the rite today) as necessary to one's preparation for Communion.

I am no theologian and I don't want to take sides, but let me just share this observation that in Ukraine, people generally do not imagine going to the Chalice without confessing their sins to the priest first. After the Anaphora and Epiklesis, a prist would even say out loud, "now please, THOSE WHO HAVE PREPARED THEMSELVES (meaning, those who just had their sins confessed to me an hour ago, or yesterday night), please form the line here." Last summer, when I was in Ukraine, I, being "spoiled" by our local US custom of not going to Confession directly before the Eucharist, went to the Chalice during a DL, and the celebrating priest looked at me and asked, straightforwardly, "have you prepared yourself?" When I mumbled something like, "well, I haven't eaten anything today and I just confessed my sins together with everybody else in the church, saying, "I believe, Lord, and confess that You are verily the Christ..." - he just made a gesture, telling me, "go away. Next." That's how strict it is over there (BTW, in all jurisdictions, canonical as well as non(yet)canonical.)

On the other hand, because there exists this custom of confessing sins directly prior to the DL, there is always a long line of penitents before the start of the DL, around 8:30-9:30 a.m., and it usually takes the priest some 5-6 minutes to go over the whole Holy Mystery, almost never longer than that.

I agree with those who say that confession and communion should not be linked - i.e. as in a "one-to-one" relationship (one confession = one communion.) That's just theologically incorrect.

But at the same time, I don't think we can separate confession from the Eucharist in the sense that it is fulfilled in the Eucharist. Penance is meant, as noted in an earlier post, to restore us to our baptismal grace. But more than that, it is to reconcile us to the community of the Church, and that reconciliation is actualized and fulfilled in the reception of the Eucharist.

These things have to be linked in the ecclesiological sense: Penance and Eucharist, Eucharist and Church, Penance and Church. They can't be separated in that sense. Because then the sacraments/mysteries just become a means of individual grace and sanctification as in the West, and they lose their connection to the Eucharist, which is THE Mystery, par excellence, and makes the Church what it is - the Body of Christ.

How can one fast for a week if we aren't allowed by canon law to fast on Saturdays?

Quote

CHURCH CANONS 1

THE 85 CANONS OF THE HOLY AND RENOWNED APOSTLESCANON LXIVIf any Clergyman be found fasting on Sunday, or on Saturday with the exception of one only, let him be deposed from office. If, however, he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

How can one fast for a week if we aren't allowed by canon law to fast on Saturdays?

Quote

CHURCH CANONS 1

THE 85 CANONS OF THE HOLY AND RENOWNED APOSTLESCANON LXIVIf any Clergyman be found fasting on Sunday, or on Saturday with the exception of one only, let him be deposed from office. If, however, he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Ooops.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

How can one fast for a week if we aren't allowed by canon law to fast on Saturdays?

Quote

CHURCH CANONS 1

THE 85 CANONS OF THE HOLY AND RENOWNED APOSTLESCANON LXIVIf any Clergyman be found fasting on Sunday, or on Saturday with the exception of one only, let him be deposed from office. If, however, he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Are we talking about fasting (e.g., not eating anything until sundown), or are we talking about just not eating meat? Abstinence from meat is technically not fasting, so such abstinence is permitted on Saturdays.

Are we talking about fasting (e.g., not eating anything until sundown), or are we talking about just not eating meat? Abstinence from meat is technically not fasting, so such abstinence is permitted on Saturdays.

Unless I've misunderstood, it seems that the Slavic understanding is that abstinence from meat means abstinence from everything:

Are we talking about fasting (e.g., not eating anything until sundown), or are we talking about just not eating meat? Abstinence from meat is technically not fasting, so such abstinence is permitted on Saturdays.

Unless I've misunderstood, it seems that the Slavic understanding is that abstinence from meat means abstinence from everything:

How can one fast for a week if we aren't allowed by canon law to fast on Saturdays?

Quote

CHURCH CANONS 1

THE 85 CANONS OF THE HOLY AND RENOWNED APOSTLESCANON LXIVIf any Clergyman be found fasting on Sunday, or on Saturday with the exception of one only, let him be deposed from office. If, however, he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Even though I disagree with the position of those who say one must do a "one week fast" each time they wish to receive, you are taking the argument out of context. The "one week fast" is a "one week abstinence from certain types of food, but not all foods," while the above canon referring to "fasting" is referring to "not eating or only eating once per day."

Yes, it is understood that when we say "abstaining from meat" it includes all the foods which are lower on the Fasting triangle.

1. Meat, milk, eggs

2. Fish

3. Wine and oil

Father, I'm sorry, but this seems to be opposite of the Greek-tradition understanding.

The lowest (i.e. most common) form of fasting/food-abstinence is no-meat. If the direction is no meat, then that's it. If it says "no dairy," then that means "no meat and no dairy." If it says "no fish," then that means "no meat, no dairy, no fish." If it says "no wine and oil," then that means "no meat, no dairy, no fish, no wine and oil."

Finally, we have "no eating."

So the only descriptions that "assume" more fasting than the title are those which are more strict than "no meat."

A good example is the typical monastic fasting/abstinence regimen (which you are quite familiar with). For most monastic communities, the bottom two rungs of the abstinence ladder (no meat, no dairy) are always followed without exception on all days of the year, while the higher ones (no fish, no wine and oil) are not always followed, but are rather implemented in the communities on the specific fast days (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday during the regular year, and the periodic fast periods).

So, in summary, "no meat" is actually the lowest and most common abstinence from the Greek understanding, and is the least restrictive; while "no wine and oil" is the second-highest abstinence and is nearly the most restrictive, encompassing no meat, no dairy, no fish, no wine and no oil.

Yes, it is understood that when we say "abstaining from meat" it includes all the foods which are lower on the Fasting triangle.

1. Meat, milk, eggs

2. Fish

3. Wine and oil

Father, I'm sorry, but this seems to be opposite of the Greek-tradition understanding.

The lowest (i.e. most common) form of fasting/food-abstinence is no-meat. If the direction is no meat, then that's it. If it says "no dairy," then that means "no meat and no dairy." If it says "no fish," then that means "no meat, no dairy, no fish." If it says "no wine and oil," then that means "no meat, no dairy, no fish, no wine and oil."

Finally, we have "no eating."

So the only descriptions that "assume" more fasting than the title are those which are more strict than "no meat."

A good example is the typical monastic fasting/abstinence regimen (which you are quite familiar with). For most monastic communities, the bottom two rungs of the abstinence ladder (no meat, no dairy) are always followed without exception on all days of the year, while the higher ones (no fish, no wine and oil) are not always followed, but are rather implemented in the communities on the specific fast days (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday during the regular year, and the periodic fast periods).

So, in summary, "no meat" is actually the lowest and most common abstinence from the Greek understanding, and is the least restrictive; while "no wine and oil" is the second-highest abstinence and is nearly the most restrictive, encompassing no meat, no dairy, no fish, no wine and no oil.

Actually father is also correct. accept he has reversed into it. When we look on our calendar an we see a fish symbol we know that fish is allowed. When viewing it from this perspective he is also correct.

Yes, it is understood that when we say "abstaining from meat" it includes all the foods which are lower on the Fasting triangle.

1. Meat, milk, eggs

2. Fish

3. Wine and oil

Father, I'm sorry, but this seems to be opposite of the Greek-tradition understanding.

The lowest (i.e. most common) form of fasting/food-abstinence is no-meat. If the direction is no meat, then that's it. If it says "no dairy," then that means "no meat and no dairy." If it says "no fish," then that means "no meat, no dairy, no fish." If it says "no wine and oil," then that means "no meat, no dairy, no fish, no wine and oil."

Finally, we have "no eating."

So the only descriptions that "assume" more fasting than the title are those which are more strict than "no meat."

A good example is the typical monastic fasting/abstinence regimen (which you are quite familiar with). For most monastic communities, the bottom two rungs of the abstinence ladder (no meat, no dairy) are always followed without exception on all days of the year, while the higher ones (no fish, no wine and oil) are not always followed, but are rather implemented in the communities on the specific fast days (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday during the regular year, and the periodic fast periods).

So, in summary, "no meat" is actually the lowest and most common abstinence from the Greek understanding, and is the least restrictive; while "no wine and oil" is the second-highest abstinence and is nearly the most restrictive, encompassing no meat, no dairy, no fish, no wine and no oil.

It's now obvious that we have simply been taught using different visual aids, different "triangles." In the one I always knew meat is placed at the top and is the heaviest restrictive demand because it may NEVER be eaten during a fast. Fish and wine and oil are less restricted because there are days when the restriction against them is removed and they may be eaten.

Yes, it is understood that when we say "abstaining from meat" it includes all the foods which are lower on the Fasting triangle.

1. Meat, milk, eggs

2. Fish

3. Wine and oil

Father, I'm sorry, but this seems to be opposite of the Greek-tradition understanding.

The lowest (i.e. most common) form of fasting/food-abstinence is no-meat. If the direction is no meat, then that's it. If it says "no dairy," then that means "no meat and no dairy." If it says "no fish," then that means "no meat, no dairy, no fish." If it says "no wine and oil," then that means "no meat, no dairy, no fish, no wine and oil."

Finally, we have "no eating."

So the only descriptions that "assume" more fasting than the title are those which are more strict than "no meat."

A good example is the typical monastic fasting/abstinence regimen (which you are quite familiar with). For most monastic communities, the bottom two rungs of the abstinence ladder (no meat, no dairy) are always followed without exception on all days of the year, while the higher ones (no fish, no wine and oil) are not always followed, but are rather implemented in the communities on the specific fast days (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday during the regular year, and the periodic fast periods).

So, in summary, "no meat" is actually the lowest and most common abstinence from the Greek understanding, and is the least restrictive; while "no wine and oil" is the second-highest abstinence and is nearly the most restrictive, encompassing no meat, no dairy, no fish, no wine and no oil.

It's now obvious that we have simply been taught using different visual aids, different "triangles." In the one I always knew meat is placed at the top and is the heaviest restrictive demand because it may NEVER be eaten during a fast. Fish and wine and oil are less restricted because there are days when the restriction against them is removed and they may be eaten.

- We can agree that meat is most restricted, since we fast from it more often than anything else.- However, the "meat" fast is least restrictive, because when the calendar says "no meat," we (non-monastics) are only fasting from meat.- The wine & oil fast is least restricted, since we fast from them less often than meat, dairy, or fish.- The wine & oil fast is most restrictive, because when the calendar says "no wine & oil" it means we can't eat meat, dairy, fish, wine, and oil.

- However, the "meat" fast is least restrictive, because when the calendar says "no meat," we (non-monastics) don't have to fast from anything else.

I think this is one part I really do not understand. On the face of it you are saying that when the Calendar says ""No Meat" you do not have to fast from eggs and milk and fish, etc. Have I got that right?

On a Slav Calendar when it says "No Meat", it means we may not eat meat and nor may we eat anything lower in the fasting food chain - not milk, not eggs, not fish... etc.

Exemptions come in on Saturday and Sunday when the Calendar will say "Wine and oil allowed."

- However, the "meat" fast is least restrictive, because when the calendar says "no meat," we (non-monastics) don't have to fast from anything else.

I think this is one part I really do not understand. On the face of it you are saying that when the Calendar says ""No Meat" you do not have to fast from eggs and milk and fish, etc. Have I got that right?

On a Slav Calendar when it says "No Meat", it means we may not eat meat and nor may we eat anything lower in the fasting food chain - not milk, not eggs, not fish... etc.

Exemptions come in on Saturday and Sunday when the Calendar will say "Wine and oil allowed."

As a "Sokac" whose maternal ancestors come from near Kutjevo on Papuk Gora in the middle of Slavonija, I call this as unhistorical, Greater Serbian chauvinist BS. Sokci are just as much Croats as Montenegrins are Serbs.

Seems to me latinazation is creeping into Holy Orthodoxy God save us from that

We Serbs do have certain advantage of seeing that.

We don't need "arguments" of "orthodox" internet "theologians" to explain how it is actually the other way around, and that linking communion with confession is latinization.

We do have a saying, do you know it brother?

"Од воље му као Шокцу пост".

All the arguments of "orthodox" internet "theologians" falls apart against that.

What advantage is that, friend? Could you please explain more clearly what you mean?

And for us lowly, non-Serbian Orthodox, could you please translate that?

The advantage is the heritage of centuries of contacts/living with Roman Catholics.

The saying goes:

"It is at his will/disposal, the same as is the fast to a Sokac*".

*Sokac(s), Sokci (pl)=the group of Serbs whom became Roman Catholics during 18th and 19th century in the Hungarian areas of Austria-Hungary, but before Vatican policy of creating Croatian nation out of Orthodox Serb converts to Roman Catholicisam was applied consistently, so they picked a distinct name, since they haven't become Croats, but couldn't remain Serbs.

It pictures clearly the differences towards fast (consequently, and confession and communion) between Orthodox and "Latin" (or whatever name you want to pertain to Christians "in communion with the Pope of Rome") as any expression of any nation in the World, since all of them say the collective experience in a few words.